1 1
brenthutch

Joe being Joe

Recommended Posts

It is worrying that all the candidates are so damn old. Any one of Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg would be the oldest president ever, right after the oldest president ever. You'd have thought that social media would make it easier for younger politicians to raise their profiles enough to have a chance but the opposite seems to be happening. Strange.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, jakee said:

It is worrying that all the candidates are so damn old. Any one of Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg would be the oldest president ever, right after the oldest president ever. You'd have thought that social media would make it easier for younger politicians to raise their profiles enough to have a chance but the opposite seems to be happening. Strange.

I think we may need to vote for the next president, by voting for the candidate with the best VP, SOON!

If the elderly covid mortality rate goes as it has . . .  the left may not HAVE any candidates still in the race soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

If the elderly covid mortality rate goes as it has . . .  the left may not HAVE any candidates still in the race soon.

Oh Turtle - you HAD to go there (but yeah, of course I laughed) ]:)

Wendy P.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Oh Turtle - you HAD to go there (but yeah, of course I laughed) ]:)

Wendy P.

Actually he has a very good point.  No matter how the election turns out we will have a president that is unable to complete a sentence.  

(on a side note, it that was a "brain fart" Biden has a terminal case of cerebral flatulence)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/03/08/sky_news_host_marvels_at_joe_biden_gaffe_montage_not_enough_popcorn_in_the_world_for_biden-trump_debate.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Actually he has a very good point.  No matter how the election turns out we will have a president that is unable to complete a sentence.  

(on a side note, it that was a "brain fart" Biden has a terminal case of cerebral flatulence)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/03/08/sky_news_host_marvels_at_joe_biden_gaffe_montage_not_enough_popcorn_in_the_world_for_biden-trump_debate.html

Biden/AOC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, headoverheels said:

She isn't old enough to qualify.

I know, I was being a smart ass. He's committed to picking a women, good by me. I know many don't like her for her hard edge and odd way of talking but I sort of favor Klobuchar. She's smart and, I think, a hard ass. Biden falls over and I think she could step right up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I know, I was being a smart ass. He's committed to picking a women, good by me. I know many don't like her for her hard edge and odd way of talking but I sort of favor Klobuchar. She's smart and, I think, a hard ass. Biden falls over and I think she could step right up.

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I know, I was being a smart ass. He's committed to picking a women, good by me. I know many don't like her for her hard edge and odd way of talking but I sort of favor Klobuchar. She's smart and, I think, a hard ass. Biden falls over and I think she could step right up.

Her - or Tulsi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2020 at 1:25 PM, JoeWeber said:

[Biden]'s committed to picking a women, good by me. I know many don't like her for her hard edge and odd way of talking but I sort of favor Klobuchar. She's smart and, I think, a hard ass. Biden falls over and I think she could step right up.

All the pundits are saying Stacey Abrams, but I also like Klobuchar or Harris.  Klobuchar has a better chance right now, as she stepped aside at the right time and immediately endorsed Biden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest thing Abrams has going for is that she's an intelligent attack dog, and we need someone who can attack, without tarnishing their own name. Because any attack will be met, of course, with a backlash. 

Abrams carries a little physical heft (this actually helps; people don't expect her to be as delicate), and has always been very forthright, and has pretty much always been right with facts. With women, what people expect of your role enters more than it does with men (well, until men start showing "weakness," like emotion, love, tenderness). 

Klobuchar doesn't come off that way. She may be that way, and if so, she hides it well, which would probably be an advantage.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

The biggest thing Abrams has going for is that she's an intelligent attack dog, and we need someone who can attack, without tarnishing their own name. Because any attack will be met, of course, with a backlash. 

Abrams carries a little physical heft (this actually helps; people don't expect her to be as delicate), and has always been very forthright, and has pretty much always been right with facts. With women, what people expect of your role enters more than it does with men (well, until men start showing "weakness," like emotion, love, tenderness). 

Klobuchar doesn't come off that way. She may be that way, and if so, she hides it well, which would probably be an advantage.

Wendy P.

Does it seem a little bit more than sexist for a candidate to say that he is going to choose a woman, rather than the non gender specific, best person to fill the roll?

Choosing a woman because she is a woman . . . seems wrong, and kind of degrading.  It seems like he is making a statement that a woman isn't good enough, but he's going to go with that course anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

Does it seem a little bit more than sexist for a candidate to say that he is going to choose a woman, rather than the non gender specific, best person to fill the roll?

Choosing a woman because she is a woman . . . seems wrong, and kind of degrading.  It seems like he is making a statement that a woman isn't good enough, but he's going to go with that course anyway.

 

Affirmative action. I know you hate it, but too bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it does. However, when the vast majority of people only look among men (or non-minorities), or when they apply male-centered criteria, then de-facto sexism is happening the other way. Saying to yourself "well, I looked, but I just couldn't find any women who I would feel comfortable hanging out in the locker room after golf," or "well, I looked, but I just can't imagine that they're tough enough to really put up with the shit that I have to put up with," is still sexism.

So deliberately picking from a discriminated-against class is one way. Making sure that your criteria are, in fact, color, gender, and everything-else-blind, is another. But then how do you get those soft criteria? Some types of fitting in are important (everyone knows a legitimate asshole). Others aren't (you really don't have to be able to talk business over the urinal, and you should be man enough not to be uncomfortable treating a woman like a person, and vice-versa).

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add: where I used to work, we had a guy we hired out of college (magna cum laude math graduate; no dummy no matter where the college). After determining the first day that he didn't need a suit, he came to work in what he considered to be business casual: baggy FUBU overalls (starched) and an oversized shirt. Very hip-hop, not country-hayseed. Why was this entirely modest, clean, and coordinated outfit not really OK? Because it just didn't fit in socially with all the white-bread polo shirts and NASA t-shirts that everyone else wore with their jeans.

Our manager (also African-American) advised him after a short while that he'd be better off dressing more like the others, on their terms, not his. Was that right? Was it racist to have a de-facto dress code that catered to the (white) majority? 

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wendy has made some good points and even turtle has touched on one, sort of.. AOC, well she does bring an important national view to the macro. But is too much in the day to day dynamics of everyday management.

IMO a woman brings an important dynamic to the decision equation. More so when the whole room is old white men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Yes, it does. However, when the vast majority of people only look among men (or non-minorities), or when they apply male-centered criteria, then de-facto sexism is happening the other way. Saying to yourself "well, I looked, but I just couldn't find any women who I would feel comfortable hanging out in the locker room after golf," or "well, I looked, but I just can't imagine that they're tough enough to really put up with the shit that I have to put up with," is still sexism.

So deliberately picking from a discriminated-against class is one way. Making sure that your criteria are, in fact, color, gender, and everything-else-blind, is another. But then how do you get those soft criteria? Some types of fitting in are important (everyone knows a legitimate asshole). Others aren't (you really don't have to be able to talk business over the urinal, and you should be man enough not to be uncomfortable treating a woman like a person, and vice-versa).

Wendy P.

As an old boss once said: "Every company needs an asshole, and you're ours." Clear discrimination against non-assholes, it seemed to me.

Whatever Biden is thinking, in my opinion some jobs are better filled with non-assholes. President of the United States, especially. Done properly, the President surrounds him or herself with dedicated, level headed experts and then makes educated executive decisions. I simply believe, based on empirical data, that with a woman as President we have a better chance of getting a non-asshole.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
19 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Wendy has made some good points and even turtle has touched on one, sort of.. AOC, well she does bring an important national view to the macro. But is too much in the day to day dynamics of everyday management.

IMO a woman brings an important dynamic to the decision equation. More so when the whole room is old white men.

Exaggeration!   I see a female face, and a brown one.
 

oldwhitemen.jpg

Edited by kallend
Well, maybe a HINT of a brown one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1